3 ms·

It should be the laborers that decide what to with the profit. Not those who sit on their assess looking at Fibonacci traces.

enitihas 8y ago
Yeah, from each according to his ... Oh wait, isn't that's what communism is and haven't we already seen enough of how that pans out?
simonh 8y ago
The reason that fails is that in practice the labourers generally decide to spend the money now, rather than invest it in growth, so businesses run that way tend to fail. There are very, very few counter-examples in narrow low-growth specialised markets, but the general rule has been shown to occur countless times across economies as small as communes to as big as a superpower. The reason capitalism works is that capital generally flows to people with a track record of making efficient, effective, growth (and therefore jobs) generating investments. Which is what you want. There is some wastage of course, but far less than in planned economies (at least all of them so far) and capitalism tends to be very efficient at recycling that wasted capital back into productive enterprises.
- pickpuck 8y ago
  Do you have any sources on workplace democracy failures? I would love to read some case studies.
  - simonh 8y ago
    One example is a recent study of the Yugoslav economy and what happened after control of production was shifted to worker councils. Employment and growth plummeted. "Amongst other things, these work councils were now free to decide on the distribution of income between wages and investment. In one sense, this policy change was a success: income per worker increased and wages became a bigger share of the economic pie. However, labour-managed firms seem to have reaped such rewards by hurting other members of the labour force, restricting the employment of new workers so as to limit the worker-based labour market competition that could scupper the wage demands of the 'insiders'." https://capx.co/do-workers-need-capitalists-new-lessons-from-yugoslavias-socialist-experiment/ https://capx.co/do-workers-need-capitalists-new-lessons-from...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The reason that fails is that in practice the labourers generally decide to spend the money now, rather than invest it in growth, so businesses run that way tend to fail. AFAIK, there is no evidence that labor coops fail at a greater rate than conventionally structured businesses. If you have such evidence, I’d love to see it.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    The reason capitalism in general fails - and markets implode with tiresome predictability - is because money tends to be taken out of companies and given to shareholders instead of being spent on R&D or growth. Capitalism fundamentally doesn't distinguish between "growth" from zero-sum rent-seeking, which simply benefits one class by impoverishing another, and growth from innovation and invention, which - at best - creates entirely new markets. Too many shareholders consider blue sky R&D with no specific return schedule an outrageously risky gamble and a misuse of money that should have been paid to them.
  - simonh 8y ago
    There's huge swathes of evidence. Read any decent economic history of the Soviet Union, or Maoist China. Or the analysis of the effect of handing power to workers councils in Yugoslavia, which I provided in answer to another such request. It was so common I even have family that watched it happen. My wife is Chinese, from Hohhot. Her father worked at a boiler factory and her mother at a textiles mill, both of which were run by worker councils and were badly mismanaged. They suffered appallingly under Maoism. This is one of the reasons this issue triggers me a bit.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > There's huge swathes of evidence. I'm still waiting to see any on point. > Read any decent economic history of the Soviet Union, or Maoist China. Which would be relevant if I was asking for evidence that Leninist vanguardism and it's derivatives were adequate systems to overcome the disadvantages poorly developed economies engaging in large scale geopolitical conflicts with advanced industrial powers face. Or if I was asking about evidence about the utility of top-down state central planning. But labor cooperatives don't require a state featuring Leninist vanguardism or top-down central planning, and in fact are a well-known practice in modern Western mixed economies like those in North America and Western Europe, and there are a lot of well-established observed differences between labor coops and classical capital-rents-labor firms within such systems, but I can't see any evidence that a higher failure rate for coops is one of them.
- profalseidol 8y ago
  Capitalism has only existed for about 300 years. And it's been shown to give rise to Fascism, destruction of the Planet, countless civilians dying everyday, countless homeless people while we have countless houses unoccupied. Regular boom-and-bust that keep people poorer and lessen social spending. It's very good at allowing the 1% exploit us and feed you lies. > There are very, very few counter-examples in narrow low-growth specialised markets, but the general rule has been shown to occur countless times across economies as small as communes to as big as a superpower. Yet we have Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain. > but far less than in planned economies (at least all of them so far) What I am specifically talking about is Worker-owned-and-directed-enterprises [1]. Planned economies is just state capitalism (but even that, you see China? the fastest growth in the history of mankind?). > and capitalism tends to be very efficient at recycling that wasted capital back into productive enterprises. Are you serious? Very efficient? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1JAzhywfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1JAzhywfA
  - lucozade 8y ago
    > Capitalism ... been shown to give rise to Fascism Historical nonsense. Fascism is a direct descendent of Marxist socialism with class consciousness replaced by nationalism. And the Soviet Union and Communist China were state socialist societies. Neither of which were known for their humanity and environmental consciousness. You can't just define capitalism as "all the bad stuff". Well you can but it's disingenuous and wrong. Pure capitalism has never existed and wouldn't work anyway. Same goes for pure socialism. Organisations like Mondragon and John Lewis have shown that models that mix the two can be successful. That message is not helped by a wilful disregard of facts.
    - profalseidol 8y ago
      > Fascism is a direct descendent of Marxist socialism with class consciousness replaced by nationalism. Pure Nonsense. Fascism is simply extreme nationalism. It is believing that one's race is superior which makes you hate immigrants. Makes you build up walls to keep them out. This is born out of the constant exploitation of the capitalists. When the people stop believing the Capitalist lies, you start getting demagogues like Trump. This has nothing to do with Marx and Socialism. Just to repeat, Soviet Union and Communist China Vangaurdism has nothing to do with Worker-owned-and-directed enterprises. Soviet Union and Communist China is very different from Mondragon and John Lewis. Power is decentralized as much as possible. Managers and Executives (if needed) are only in power for a few months and is subject to call any time. Unlike today where C-level persons act like Feudal Lords.
- netcan 8y ago
  There have been very few examples at all, and most that exist are from oddball times, or circumstances. One example I know of are Israel's "labor-owned^" companies of the 50s and 60s, notably "eged" the bus company. There were pathologies but not necessarily what you might expect. Notably, employees objected to expanding the employee pool. This led to a system where old employees were shareholders and new ones were not. This eventually led to the collapse of the system, as much for ideological (classism) reasons as practical ones. The dynamics are poorly understood, imo. One possibility is that this type of company will tend to maximize earnings-per employee. Without the ideological baggage, I wonder if a dual classes if employees isactually a good idea. As this article demonstrates, the lines between ownership, governance on paper & governance in practice are not straight. ^"labor" was, att, the dominant institution of the country with the ruling party, largest medical network, etc. It was a new country, post holocaust solidarity, war, socialism... exceptional circumstances and not a perfect example, certainly.
  - profalseidol 8y ago
    Mondragon Cooperatives, possibly the largest worker owned and directed enterprise today. Not perfect but it's a good case study to demonstrate that employees being in control results into better quality products and less lay-off (as seen during regular capitalist recessions).

enitihas 8y ago

Yeah, from each according to his ... Oh wait, isn't that's what communism is and haven't we already seen enough of how that pans out?

simonh 8y ago

The reason that fails is that in practice the labourers generally decide to spend the money now, rather than invest it in growth, so businesses run that way tend to fail. There are very, very few counter-examples in narrow low-growth specialised markets, but the general rule has been shown to occur countless times across economies as small as communes to as big as a superpower. The reason capitalism works is that capital generally flows to people with a track record of making efficient, effective, growth (and therefore jobs) generating investments. Which is what you want. There is some wastage of course, but far less than in planned economies (at least all of them so far) and capitalism tends to be very efficient at recycling that wasted capital back into productive enterprises.

pickpuck 8y ago
Do you have any sources on workplace democracy failures? I would love to read some case studies.
- simonh 8y ago
  One example is a recent study of the Yugoslav economy and what happened after control of production was shifted to worker councils. Employment and growth plummeted. "Amongst other things, these work councils were now free to decide on the distribution of income between wages and investment. In one sense, this policy change was a success: income per worker increased and wages became a bigger share of the economic pie. However, labour-managed firms seem to have reaped such rewards by hurting other members of the labour force, restricting the employment of new workers so as to limit the worker-based labour market competition that could scupper the wage demands of the 'insiders'." https://capx.co/do-workers-need-capitalists-new-lessons-from-yugoslavias-socialist-experiment/ https://capx.co/do-workers-need-capitalists-new-lessons-from...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The reason that fails is that in practice the labourers generally decide to spend the money now, rather than invest it in growth, so businesses run that way tend to fail. AFAIK, there is no evidence that labor coops fail at a greater rate than conventionally structured businesses. If you have such evidence, I’d love to see it.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The reason capitalism in general fails - and markets implode with tiresome predictability - is because money tends to be taken out of companies and given to shareholders instead of being spent on R&D or growth. Capitalism fundamentally doesn't distinguish between "growth" from zero-sum rent-seeking, which simply benefits one class by impoverishing another, and growth from innovation and invention, which - at best - creates entirely new markets. Too many shareholders consider blue sky R&D with no specific return schedule an outrageously risky gamble and a misuse of money that should have been paid to them.
- simonh 8y ago
  There's huge swathes of evidence. Read any decent economic history of the Soviet Union, or Maoist China. Or the analysis of the effect of handing power to workers councils in Yugoslavia, which I provided in answer to another such request. It was so common I even have family that watched it happen. My wife is Chinese, from Hohhot. Her father worked at a boiler factory and her mother at a textiles mill, both of which were run by worker councils and were badly mismanaged. They suffered appallingly under Maoism. This is one of the reasons this issue triggers me a bit.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > There's huge swathes of evidence. I'm still waiting to see any on point. > Read any decent economic history of the Soviet Union, or Maoist China. Which would be relevant if I was asking for evidence that Leninist vanguardism and it's derivatives were adequate systems to overcome the disadvantages poorly developed economies engaging in large scale geopolitical conflicts with advanced industrial powers face. Or if I was asking about evidence about the utility of top-down state central planning. But labor cooperatives don't require a state featuring Leninist vanguardism or top-down central planning, and in fact are a well-known practice in modern Western mixed economies like those in North America and Western Europe, and there are a lot of well-established observed differences between labor coops and classical capital-rents-labor firms within such systems, but I can't see any evidence that a higher failure rate for coops is one of them.
profalseidol 8y ago
Capitalism has only existed for about 300 years. And it's been shown to give rise to Fascism, destruction of the Planet, countless civilians dying everyday, countless homeless people while we have countless houses unoccupied. Regular boom-and-bust that keep people poorer and lessen social spending. It's very good at allowing the 1% exploit us and feed you lies. > There are very, very few counter-examples in narrow low-growth specialised markets, but the general rule has been shown to occur countless times across economies as small as communes to as big as a superpower. Yet we have Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain. > but far less than in planned economies (at least all of them so far) What I am specifically talking about is Worker-owned-and-directed-enterprises [1]. Planned economies is just state capitalism (but even that, you see China? the fastest growth in the history of mankind?). > and capitalism tends to be very efficient at recycling that wasted capital back into productive enterprises. Are you serious? Very efficient? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1JAzhywfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1JAzhywfA
- lucozade 8y ago
  > Capitalism ... been shown to give rise to Fascism Historical nonsense. Fascism is a direct descendent of Marxist socialism with class consciousness replaced by nationalism. And the Soviet Union and Communist China were state socialist societies. Neither of which were known for their humanity and environmental consciousness. You can't just define capitalism as "all the bad stuff". Well you can but it's disingenuous and wrong. Pure capitalism has never existed and wouldn't work anyway. Same goes for pure socialism. Organisations like Mondragon and John Lewis have shown that models that mix the two can be successful. That message is not helped by a wilful disregard of facts.
  - profalseidol 8y ago
    > Fascism is a direct descendent of Marxist socialism with class consciousness replaced by nationalism. Pure Nonsense. Fascism is simply extreme nationalism. It is believing that one's race is superior which makes you hate immigrants. Makes you build up walls to keep them out. This is born out of the constant exploitation of the capitalists. When the people stop believing the Capitalist lies, you start getting demagogues like Trump. This has nothing to do with Marx and Socialism. Just to repeat, Soviet Union and Communist China Vangaurdism has nothing to do with Worker-owned-and-directed enterprises. Soviet Union and Communist China is very different from Mondragon and John Lewis. Power is decentralized as much as possible. Managers and Executives (if needed) are only in power for a few months and is subject to call any time. Unlike today where C-level persons act like Feudal Lords.
netcan 8y ago
There have been very few examples at all, and most that exist are from oddball times, or circumstances. One example I know of are Israel's "labor-owned^" companies of the 50s and 60s, notably "eged" the bus company. There were pathologies but not necessarily what you might expect. Notably, employees objected to expanding the employee pool. This led to a system where old employees were shareholders and new ones were not. This eventually led to the collapse of the system, as much for ideological (classism) reasons as practical ones. The dynamics are poorly understood, imo. One possibility is that this type of company will tend to maximize earnings-per employee. Without the ideological baggage, I wonder if a dual classes if employees isactually a good idea. As this article demonstrates, the lines between ownership, governance on paper & governance in practice are not straight. ^"labor" was, att, the dominant institution of the country with the ruling party, largest medical network, etc. It was a new country, post holocaust solidarity, war, socialism... exceptional circumstances and not a perfect example, certainly.
- profalseidol 8y ago
  Mondragon Cooperatives, possibly the largest worker owned and directed enterprise today. Not perfect but it's a good case study to demonstrate that employees being in control results into better quality products and less lay-off (as seen during regular capitalist recessions).